Attempt to deceive Alabama voters?

On Tuesday, 1,058,000 voters in Alabama cast their choices for a variety of issues, including both presidential primaries, a host of state and local candidates and one amendment. There was little, if any controversy, almost to the point of being mundane and boring. Yet, I have heard a flood of concerns and criticism beginning at the voting location, of the matter in which Amendment One was worded on the ballot. After listening to many of these complaints and carefully reviewing the issue, I believe that this dissatisfaction and outcry is justified.

Briefly, this Amendment was written and sponsored by State Senator Arthur Orr of Decatur. Orr has thoroughly explained the legislation and his reason, which was posted online on Feb 28 – just 48 hours prior to the public being asked to vote on the measure. For several decades, Alabama taxpayers have been funding the judicial retirement system for judges, circuit court clerks and district attorneys without participants having to personally contribute and still achieve supernumerary status retiring after only 18 years of service, with 75 percent of their base salary. Under Amendment One, beginning with new employees, they cannot draw retirement until age 62 and must personally contribute 8.5 percent toward their retirement. Senator Orr states that, if approved, Amendment One will save state taxpayers $200 million over the next 30 years.

Here is the catch: Because of the way the amendment was worded, one would briefly read through the single paragraph and think it was yet another fat retirement benefit for the judicial system and thus, vote no. I initially had that reaction, as did many voters I have spoken with. Obviously, our objective would require a "yes" vote instead.

Fortunately, Amendment One did pass with 62.84 percent of the vote.

Is it too much to ask our Legislature to shoot straight with the voters? When placing items on the ballot, speak straight forward and honestly. Refrain from waiting just 48 hours before elections to post explanations of items being considered.

James W. Anderson

Talladega

'You can run, but you can't hide'

The Advertiser’s guest editorial, written by the USA Today editorial board, “The terrorist's iPhone,” asks “five technical and political questions” – none of which mention “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” that presidents and congress swear to protect.

That doesn’t surprise me, given the editorial board’s love affair with President Obama, who promised “transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”

Obama demands access to “We the People’s” records, but he keeps his own personal records hidden and stonewalls legal efforts to reveal government records possibly illegally removed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Like that legendary Alabamian from Chambers County said, “You can run, but you can't hide,” and historians will eventually reveal your true character.

Obama, how will you rank – dead last against 43 predecessors and all who follow you?

Joe Boyett

Montgomery

Cruz not the strong leader we need

A recent letter to the editor, written by a retired army colonel, is titled "Cruz is strongest on defense." The writer tells us Cruz plans a massive build-up of the armed forces, including increases in troops, planes and ships. He calls it a "Reagan-style rebuild."

Since I am a retired army chief warrant officer and interested in the defense of America, I suppose I would be expected to say, "Way to go, colonel. Let's all go vote for Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas." Not so fast. I also believe in competent, patriotic leaders, especially the commander-in-chief, who won't destroy our nation with his selfish ambition and "feel-good" words.

Where does Cruz plan to get the money to do this massive "Reagan rebuild"? We might recall that when Reagan took office, the national debt was around $1 trillion. He tripled it in just eight years with his borrow and spend policies. Does Cruz know any better? Does leading a $24 billion Republican shutdown of the government demonstrate leadership? Is Cruz in favor of strengthening the IRS to restrain tax cheats? Is he in favor of the rich paying their fair share of taxes? Nope.

In addition, Cruz is likely the most despised member of the U.S. Senate, detested by even members of his own party. Even Cruz' record outside of his senate activities shows he is just mean, even to his own children. As much as we dislike Trump, he (Trump) would do less damage to America than Cruz.